To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

Olaf
QUOTE (jackokring+Feb 28 2011, 04:16 PM)
I have converted the main classes of spoony's Java app

In 2010 Javier Mazzone corrected some of the missing parenthesis in Heims 1989 mass formula. I think this corrections are not included in that Java app.
To make an up to date version of the software you must study Heims 1989 PDF in the heim-theory.org wiki and/or the Mathcad and Excel program versions that you can download at the Protosimplex website.
The PDF has an addendum with the latest corrections.
hdeasy
Supersymmetry may have been shown to be wrong already by the LHC:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110228/ful...d=NEWS-20110301

Beautiful theory collides with smashing particle data

Latest results from the LHC are casting doubt on the theory of supersymmetry.

Geoff Brumfiel

“Any squarks in here?” The ATLAS detector (above) at the Large Hadron Collider has failed to find predicted ‘super partners’ of fundamental particles.C. MARCELLONI/CERN



"Wonderful, beautiful and unique" is how Gordon Kane describes supersymmetry theory. Kane, a theoretical physicist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, has spent about 30 years working on supersymmetry, a theory that he and many others believe solves a host of problems with our understanding of the subatomic world.

Yet there is growing anxiety that the theory, however elegant it might be, is wrong. Data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a 27-kilometre proton smasher that straddles the French–Swiss border near Geneva, Switzerland, have shown no sign of the 'super particles' that the theory predicts1–3. "We're painting supersymmetry into a corner," says Chris Lester, a particle physicist at the University of Cambridge, UK, who works with the LHC's ATLAS detector. Along with the LHC's Compact Muon Solenoid experiment, ATLAS has spent the past year hunting for super particles, and is now set to gather more data when the LHC begins a high-power run in the next few weeks. If the detectors fail to find any super particles by the end of the year, the theory could be in serious trouble.

That could be great news for Heim Theory.
hdeasy
double post - sorry.
gocrew
QUOTE (hdeasy+Mar 1 2011, 03:36 PM)
That could be great news for Heim Theory.

There was already plenty of doubt about supersymmetry, at least as I understood it.

If supersymmetry goes the way of the dodo, isn't that about the end of string theory as well, or am I wrong here?
Lunarlanding
QUOTE (brucep+Feb 22 2011, 03:54 AM)
Great Lunar
I really enjoyed your comments leading me to learn about stuff I never knew about superconductors. Then I read his paper and followed the argument.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0203033

I'll read the Tate paper. I don't want to make a guess. I just hope it's not a health issue for you.

Bruce

Thanks Bruce.
And thanks for the link; I need to save it; it does provide details of what I was talking about, as well as a reference to a very interesting phenomena that I had over-looked .... (phase slip) helium gyroscopes.

I thought Tajmar and deMatos made a good case for the Gravitomagnetic possibility, especially after his accelerometers indicated a GM signal within an order of magnitude of their prediction.

However, they appear to have recanted on that prediction after having switched to Laser gyroscopes for the detectors.....and concluded the helium is the culprit.

This leaves an open question;

1.If helium is the cause of the "apparent" GM signal, then should it not also lead to a similar effect in Tate's experiments (and possibly contribute to the mass defect) since she also used helium cryogen. (However, I'm not sure if her's was circulating or simply a He vapor bath.)




QUOTE
I don't want to make a guess. I just hope it's not a health issue for you.


You guessed it. They went looking for the big C (after an operation and pathology indicated I had it). My comment was referring to the fact that they injected my blood with a positron emitter (I think it was fluorine-18), which filled my organs with positrons blink.gif , and took pics of the coincident gamma rays from my 'glowing' body. laugh.gif I guess that counts as first hand experience with anti-matter. Typically known as Positron emission tomography.
Fortunately F(18) has a 1/2 life of only 20 minute so I wasn't radioactive for more than a day. cool.gif and I didn't kiss any nurses...I promise... really... laugh.gif

Lunar
gdaigle
Lunar,
Sorry to hear about your health issues. Here's to a steady gain back to health.

As I understand, Tajmar is hedging his bets on GM as a source of his anomaly. He now states that M.E. McCulloch's paper "Can the Tajmar effect be explained using a modification of inertia" is the best theoretical description of his anomaly so far.

That MiHsC model assumes that the inertia of the gyroscope is caused by Unruh radiation that appears as the ring and the fixed stars accelerate relative to it, and that this radiation is subject to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect. The paper further posits that the gravitometric London effect is inadequate to explain the Tajmar effect because the inception of the anomaly does not coincide with the superconducting transition temperature, only with very low temperatures.
brucep
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Mar 2 2011, 04:37 AM)
Thanks Bruce.
And thanks for the link; I need to save it; it does provide details of what I was talking about, as well as a reference to a very interesting phenomena that I had over-looked .... (phase slip) helium gyroscopes.

I thought Tajmar and deMatos made a good case for the Gravitomagnetic possibility, especially after his accelerometers indicated a GM signal within an order of magnitude of their prediction.

However, they appear to have recanted on that prediction after having switched to Laser gyroscopes for the detectors.....and concluded the helium is the culprit.

This leaves an open question;

1.If helium is the cause of the "apparent" GM signal, then should it not also lead to a similar effect in Tate's experiments (and possibly contribute to the mass defect) since she also used helium cryogen. (However, I'm not sure if her's was circulating or simply a He vapor bath.)






You guessed it. They went looking for the big C (after an operation and pathology indicated I had it). My comment was referring to the fact that they injected my blood with a positron emitter (I think it was fluorine-18), which filled my organs with positrons blink.gif , and took pics of the coincident gamma rays from my 'glowing' body. laugh.gif I guess that counts as first hand experience with anti-matter. Typically known as Positron emission tomography.
Fortunately F(18) has a 1/2 life of only 20 minute so I wasn't radioactive for more than a day. cool.gif and I didn't kiss any nurses...I promise... really... laugh.gif

Lunar

Lunar

My sentiments are the same as gdaigle. Kick its a$$. Everybody you know wants the best for you. Including internet friends.

I never read Tates paper describing the mass anomaly. This is the paper gdaigle mentions. I'm going to read it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.1108

This is fun reading from Kip Thorne. You've probably already read it but in case not...

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/scripts/Cl...urves-II121.pdf

Bruce

Jossarian
There is a lot of noise regarding A. Rossi Cold Fusion experiments if you didn't noticed it already:
Cold Fusion: 18 hour test excludes combustion

And few words of hope:
QUOTE
Cold Fusion could be the discovery that lets humanity know ALL things are possible. If humanity dreams something it CAN be done. However, the skeptics and cynics did not contribute to the bright future that may be ahead of us due to this technology. It was the minority of scientists and researchers with an OPEN mind that were willing to look at NEW POSSIBILITIES. These individuals endured hostility, assaults, and attacks of all kinds. They need to be remembered.

found here.
jackokring
Retyping formula from mathcad documents.

In N3(k,q) the last term is a constant multiplied by a delta function? Please explain.

Cheers Jacko
Plumb Bob
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Mar 2 2011, 04:37 AM)
I thought Tajmar and deMatos made a good case for the Gravitomagnetic possibility, especially after his accelerometers indicated a GM signal within an order of magnitude of their prediction.

However, they appear to have recanted on that prediction after having switched to Laser gyroscopes for the detectors.....and concluded the helium is the culprit.

This leaves an open question;

1.If helium is the cause of the "apparent" GM signal, then should it not also lead to a similar effect in Tate's experiments (and possibly contribute to the mass defect) since she also used helium cryogen. (However, I'm not sure if her's was circulating or simply a He vapor bath.)


And also gravity Probe B had helium coolant with spinning superconductors.
But how or why would helium create a GEM effect??

Hope you the best with the Docs.

Bob.
gdaigle
Just a note that I've published an ebook on Extended Heim Theory and design strategies for real-world implementations should gravity modification technology be developed. It's written for designers (urban, transportation, architecture, industrial) and was reviewed for accuracy by Profs J. Hauser and M. Tajmar. Title: "Gravity 2.0"
kurt9
Superconductor cables that work in liquid Nitrogen temperatures:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-compac...ables-nist.html

This material can conduct 2800 Amps through a 7.5mm diameter cable. I'm not sure if this is enough to do the fermionic coupling test. Assuming that it is, anyone care to venture a guess as to how much it would cost to conduct the experiment?
bprager
QUOTE (gdaigle+Mar 12 2011, 07:27 PM)
Just a note that I've published an ebook on Extended Heim Theory and design strategies for real-world implementations should gravity modification technology be developed.  It's written for designers (urban, transportation, architecture, industrial) and was reviewed for accuracy by Profs J. Hauser and M. Tajmar.  Title:  "Gravity 2.0"

Can you post a source please?
gdaigle
QUOTE
Can you post a source please?

Links and preview are available here: http://www.gravitymodification.com
MichaelB
Can anybody say if it's possible to buy the book from B&N from outside the US if there's written it's just available in the US. I don't wanna register and all, just to find out it's not possible (as expected). And if so, can the NookBook (epub) be read also on non Nook devices ? (eg. my Nokia phone)
Or: gdaigle, can you find another place, where you can publish the book ? I think there should be places out there like lulu.com, which would be better suited for non US (or Apple products or Kindle owning) people. :-)

Michael
gdaigle
QUOTE
Can anybody say if it's possible to buy the book from B&N from outside the US if there's written it's just available in the US. I don't wanna register and all, just to find out it's not possible (as expected). And if so, can the NookBook (epub) be read also on non Nook devices ? (eg. my Nokia phone)
Or: gdaigle, can you find another place, where you can publish the book ? I think there should be places out there like lulu.com, which would be better suited for non US (or Apple products or Kindle owning) people. :-)

Michael

There is a list of software reading systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPUB for any EPUB books and some of those include add-ons and widgets for browsers (e.g. Firefox and Opera) for reading EPUB files. Hardware reading systems for EPUB include Nokia 770, n800, n810, and n900 according to the above page. This book was released for international distribution, but I've never tested how well that works. I will be seeking other distributors (lulu included).
gravitophoton
...so did anyone of this forum make it to SPESIF 2011 these days?


http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF2011/AGENDA/2011_Agenda.pdf

http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html

anything interesting going on there ?
rolleyes.gif

gdaigle
I did not attend but would have loved to hear the sessions by Jay Falker and Harry Partridge of NASA's Innovative Advanced Concepts, and Game Changing Technology programs, respectively.

Also, yesterday's session presentation by James Woodward on the Mach Effect and the session just completed this morning, chaired by Martin Tajmar and Ben Solomon, including:
- Physics of Extreme Gravitomagnetic and Gravity-Like Fields for Novel Space Propulsion and Energy Generation by Walter Dröscher and Jochem Hauser
- Reverse Engineering Podkletnov’s Experiments by Benjamin T Solomon

Also a student presentation later today by a PhD candidate:
Theoretical and Experimental Searches for the Podkletnov Effect by Hamilton Carter on a brief history of benchtop gravitational experiments including those by Podkletnov and Tajmar.
unit



I am currently at SPESIF. Its been pretty good, got to hear from NIAC.

Professor Hauser gave his presentation this morning.

So far, the three sources as we all know (or have heard about at some point) that have been used to corroborate evidence of Heim theory are 1) Tajmar's rotating superconductor experiment, 2) Gravity probe B, 3) Grahm's experiment (some guy from an Australian institution who was unable to replicate Tajmar's results)


He reconciled the problems concerning the use of Gravity Probe B as a way to corroborate EHT. He cited the inherent problems in the experiment and noted it as"ill-conceived", however, even when accounting for these design problems, there is still a portion unaccounted for--which is where he claims EHT comes in. He

He presented in a table the key differences between Tajmar's experiment and Grahm's experiment (which was unable to replicate Tajmar's results) and why those differences were apparent.

He concluded his lecture by suggesting that an axial field, or 'Heim experiment' be conductedto further developing/understanding Heim theory (maybe someone on this forum has access to the slideshow, but it should be available on the proceedings CD)

Hopefully I didn't butcher this explanation too badly, but that's what I took away from his


=> gdaigle: Prof. Hauser mentioned your recent work "Gravity 2.0". I definitely will be taking a look at your publication

best
gravitophoton
How nice; thanks unit! biggrin.gif
very best
gravitophoton
...and looking forward to read your book gdaigle, thanks 4 writing it! very best
wink.gif
bprager
Reinventing Heim's "metron" again?:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/...10319085514.htm
unit
just got finished uploading Professor Hauser's presentation on Gravitomagnetic fields and EHT from SPESIF-2011

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=AWEP51EV

enjoy
gdaigle
Unit, thanks for that link.
gdaigle
A month ago G. Modanese, a former co-author with Podkletnov, wrote a lengthy (139 pgs) "historical summary" paper on Podkletnov's Impulse Gravity Generator: http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.5447 Worth a look.
bprager
That could be a disappointing to Häuser & Dröscher:
Pioneer Anomaly Solved By 1970s Computer Graphics
bprager
Sorry hiccup in the matrix. (I double posted by accident.)
gdaigle
QUOTE
That could be a disappointing to Häuser & Dröscher:
Pioneer Anomaly Solved By 1970s Computer Graphics


Actually, Hauser & Dröscher pointed to EHT as a possible explanation for the anomalous data in the Gravity Probe B results, not Pioneer. If the newly discovered explanation for the Pioneer Anomaly is born-out then it removes some of the support for MOND and for Modified Inertia. MOND is a competing theory to EHT, as is Modified Inertia due to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect. So this new research actually works to eliminate support for alternatives to EHT, though it does not give EHT any direct support. MiHsC also cites flyby anomalies as supportive data, so it's not out of the game yet... but is it still favored by Tajmar over EHT?
bprager
QUOTE (gdaigle+Apr 1 2011, 03:53 AM)

Actually, Hauser & Dröscher pointed to EHT as a possible explanation for the anomalous data in the Gravity Probe B results, not Pioneer. 

O yes, you are right. My bad!
kurt9
There is a simple prosaic explanation for the Pioneer "anomaly":

http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222

I never thought there was anything special about the Pioneer anomaly.
gdaigle
Interesting. I had not noticed that the study was co-authored by Orfeu Bertolami, his third on the Pioneer anomaly.

Bertolami co-authored an ESA-funded study with Tajmar in 2004 on hypothetical gravity control. The study was under a contract from ESTEC, the European Space Research and Technology Center of ESA. Acknowledgements within that study included Clovis de Matos, who would later co-author the "breakthrough" study with Tajmar.

Another interesting intersection, Dr. Hauser headed the Aerothermodynamics Section at ESTEC from 1988-1992. It appears to be a very close-knit physics community pioneering this groundbreaking work.
brucep
QUOTE (kurt9+Apr 1 2011, 05:12 PM)
There is a simple prosaic explanation for the Pioneer "anomaly":

http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222

I never thought there was anything special about the Pioneer anomaly.

That's nice. I've been following since John Anderson, and peers, first brought it up. Post it somewhere besides this thread so somebody will read it.
gravitophoton
dear all;
so far there s no SPESIF 2011 conference proceeding on the AIP website...
http://proceedings.aip.org/
Is it true it was canceled??
... only found this source:
AIP Cancels SPESIF!!!@ http://www.alienscientist.com/
blink.gif
does anyone know if that is accurate??
thanks.
g.
Mindrust
QUOTE (gravitophoton+Apr 3 2011, 06:43 AM)
dear all;
so far there s no SPESIF 2011 conference proceeding on the AIP website...
http://proceedings.aip.org/
Is it true it was canceled??
... only found this source:
AIP Cancels SPESIF!!!@ http://www.alienscientist.com/
blink.gif
does anyone know if that is accurate??
thanks.
g.

It wasn't cancelled. Someone posted a video of Hauser's presentation.
gravitophoton
QUOTE (Mindrust+Apr 3 2011, 11:08 PM)
It wasn't cancelled. Someone posted a video of Hauser's presentation.

wink.gif not the conference, of course it took place. i meant the publication published by AIP , just like the one of Spesif 2010
http://scitation.aip.org/proceedings/confproceed/1208.jsp

and Spesif 2009
http://scitation.aip.org/proceedings/confproceed/1103.jsp.

It looks as if there s none for 2011... Is there any other publication of this years Spesif ??
regards
g.
Jossarian
New evidence of physics beyond the standard model?
LHC Locking In on New Elementary Particle
bprager
QUOTE (Jossarian+Apr 5 2011, 01:34 PM)
New evidence of physics beyond the standard model?
LHC Locking In on New Elementary Particle

This is the paper for it.
gdaigle
Very interesting. 145 GeV is above anything I've ever heard in the context of EHT.

As Dröscher and Hauser posited in their Aug 2009 paper, the inertial masses of e0, μ0, τ0 (the electron, muon and tauon, the three neutral leptons that they initially proposed as candidates for dark matter) were assumed to be close to their charged lepton counterparts, i.e., 0.511 MeV/c2 for electrons, 105.66 MeV/c2 for muons, and 1.78 GeV/c2 for tauons.

More recent calculations by Dröscher and Hauser indicate that dark matter particles are still in the form of neutral leptons but decay from z0 bosons of the weak interaction and should have a mass in the range of 40-45GeV/c2. This is more consistent with projections by other researchers but well below 145 GeV. 145 GeV is almost twice that predicted for WIMPs (75 GeV).
gdaigle
Drs. Hauser and Dröscher's paper presented at SPESIF 2011 is now available on the arXiv server: http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3247
The title is: "Physics of Extreme Gravitomagnetic and Gravity-Like Fields for Novel Space Propulsion and Energy Generation"
rethinker
QUOTE (gdaigle+Apr 19 2011, 07:32 AM)
Drs. Hauser and Dröscher's paper presented at SPESIF 2011 is now available on the arXiv server: http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3247
The title is: "Physics of Extreme Gravitomagnetic and Gravity-Like Fields for Novel Space Propulsion and Energy Generation"

gdaigle

Do you or anyone happen to know what he means in the abstract on the last line where he writes

[QUOTE]Therefore a novel physical mechanism should exist for the generation of gravity-like fields, which might also provide the key to gravitational engineering similar to electromagnetic technology.
gdaigle
QUOTE
Do you or anyone happen to know what he means in the abstract on the last line where he writes, "Therefore a novel physical mechanism should exist for the generation of gravity-like fields, which might also provide the key to gravitational engineering similar to electromagnetic technology."


The authors suggest how such gravity-like fields would be revolutionary if employed to replace traditional launch capabilities from the surface of the earth or to produce plasma confinement for fusion reactors as well as "enabling technology for propellantless propulsion and novel air and land transportation systems as well as green energy generation etc."

My interpretation is that any technology based upon gravitational field generation independent of mass would be profound, on the scale of the generation of electrical power over a century ago and its ability to do work.

But read it for yourself. The link to download the full pdf version is in the upper right of the abstract page.
rethinker
thanks gdaigle
I did overlook the link
gravitophoton
QUOTE (gravitophoton+Mar 16 2011, 11:48 AM)
...so did anyone of this forum make it to SPESIF 2011 these days?


http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF2011/AGENDA/2011_Agenda.pdf

http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html

anything interesting going on there ?
rolleyes.gif

sorry 2 bring this up again: but it looks as if there is only a CD of the SPESIF 2011 conference.
http://www.ias-spes.org/SPESIF2011/Registr...ment_Review.php

How were the other papers??? is it worth it to get the cd for 75?
Thanks 4 info!
reg
g.
gdaigle
Despite the cost, the CD may remain the only option for reviewing the conference materials presented. My understanding is that the AIP will not be publishing the proceedings of SPESIF 2011.
UncleMatt
QUOTE (gdaigle+Apr 29 2011, 11:49 PM)
Despite the cost, the CD may remain the only option for reviewing the conference materials presented.  My understanding is that the AIP will not be publishing the proceedings of SPESIF 2011.

How lame is that?
rpenner
How lame is what?

Are they backing out of a contractual agreement? I would guess no. Where is the evidence of the agreement?

If you won't pay $75 for the CD, are they backing out of a profit opportunity? I would say no. Where is the evidence for the commercial demand?

Are they passing up on journal-reviewed science? I would say no. That was the point of the conference.

The Wednesday 9:30 paper was titled "Reverse Engineering Podkletnov’s Experiments" -- which would be unnecessary if the experiments were repeatable. (Also, it's "'t Hooft" not just "Hooft".)

Thursday 1:45 "The Voyager Anomaly and the GEM theory" which is unfortunate if the Voyager Anomaly is in fact zero. http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222

Another paper is the analysis of the societies in fictional works by one author.

Fringe claims of data, Fringe theories based on data of poor quality, incestuous paper review; This conference seems like a waste of money front to back.

UncleMatt
QUOTE (rpenner+May 1 2011, 10:37 AM)
How lame is what?

I say "lame" because it restricts access to the information...
Lunarlanding
QUOTE (UncleMatt+May 1 2011, 10:47 PM)
I say "lame" because it restricts access to the information...



Thank God...
In my opinion they should raise the price to about $5,000 per copy just to prevent such erroneous "psuedo-science" from spreading any further.


...
brucep
QUOTE (rpenner+May 1 2011, 04:37 PM)
How lame is what?

Are they backing out of a contractual agreement? I would guess no. Where is the evidence of the agreement?

If you won't pay $75 for the CD, are they backing out of a profit opportunity? I would say no. Where is the evidence for the commercial demand?

Are they passing up on journal-reviewed science? I would say no. That was the point of the conference.

The Wednesday 9:30 paper was titled "Reverse Engineering Podkletnov’s Experiments" -- which would be unnecessary if the experiments were repeatable. (Also, it's "'t Hooft" not just "Hooft".)

Thursday 1:45 "The Voyager Anomaly and the GEM theory" which is unfortunate if the Voyager Anomaly is in fact zero. http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222

Another paper is the analysis of the societies in fictional works by one author.

Fringe claims of data, Fringe theories based on data of poor quality, incestuous paper review; This conference seems like a waste of money front to back.

If a positive consensus for the model is forthcoming I think the paper "Modelling the reflective thermal contribution to the acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft" becomes a very important paper. I really like the way it came about. The authors useing a method developed for a PHD thesis from 1975, B. T. Phong, Illumination for computer generated pic-tures, Communications of ACM 18, no. 6, pp 311 –317(1975) to model the relective thermal contribution. I'm not a scientist but I believe this is what is meant, in part, by 'the scientific literature'.
rpenner
The Wikipedia page on the Pioneer anomaly points out that because of the course-corrections made to Voyager, there is no Voyager anomaly. You can't generally measure something below your instrument's precision level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anoma...her_indications

For more on the Pioneer putative anomaly.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2010-4/
gravitophoton
Thanks anyway; for all your comments concerning spesif...

however; .....

This is going2b interesting: GP-B Final Experimental Results, May 4, 2011
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
kurt9
The Gravity Probe B results are published. Geodetic and frame dragging effects are confirmed. Given that these were the final two predicted effects of GR to be confirmed, its reasonable to say that GR is real.
rpenner
Some commentary:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-f...probe-b-bailout
(Part of the data analysis story from 2009-2010)

Recent summaries:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id...nally_pays_off_
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011...e-b.html?ref=ra
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/05/post_76.html

The paper (abstract only):
http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491...60a57ac82e7d8c0

To be published in Physical Review Letters.
geodetic effect confirmed to within 0.2%
frame-dragging effect to within 19% (goal was closer to 1%, but they electrically polarized their gyroscopes and almost obliterated this result with Coulomb forces)
Earlier (2004), the LAGOS experiment confirmed frame-dragging to within 10%.
JTsang
QUOTE
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28550&view=findpost&p=474318
JTsang:
Space is a difficult subject, most people don't even realized it's questionable.

Atomic space filled with CMB is a good imagination.
A temperature of X degree between ANY atomic spaces ?

In fact, answer this :
Can space move ? The space inside an empty matchbox, does it move with the matchbox ?

No ?, how about the space next to a rotational black hole ? or, how can gravitational wave generated ?


Sigh.

Supposedly, space inside a matchbox IS moving with the box, that, is frame dragged !

Where's the space-time in front of the matchbox goes ? what about the space-time behind it that appears out of nowhere ?
rpenner
JSTang, you are talking about the mythical dragging of "empty space" by mechanical pistons. That has nothing to do with GR or, apparently, reality.

Frame dragging happens because momentum contributes to gravity, but for a given massive particle there is a frame where it's momentum is zero. So Relativity + Gravity + extended rotating massive body = Frame dragging.

The Earth doesn't spin very fast so frame dragging is much less impressive than the contributions to gravity from its mass alone.
JTsang
Rpenner:

Mythical dragging of "empty space" by mechanical pistons is so funny, it may even be true.

Cut it to the chase, momentum, gravity, massive particle, reference frame & rotation are all secondary, internal / intrinsic nature of Space Time is Primary :

In this thread, the question is :
Can specific space time be contained, and transported ?

A matchbox can do it, however , let's make inside space-time obviously differ from outside by using a metallic hollow ball, with some rotating objects in it .... just like a solar system inside a hollow shell.

You may even put a Schrödinger cat in.

Now you have TWO different world, the internal structure is not available to outside
... (note) sort of ... let do a reality check.

===========================
note:
1) Frame "dragged" is a natural consequence if space-time can be dragged ... not even worth mentioning.
2) Under certain consideration.. akin to a black hole ?
3) Some trick issue is skipped intentional... such as momentum, gravity, mass, reference frame, rotation, containment, transportation.... indeed, each can be a whole new chapter of it's own.
4) Here, Space Time mean Space time AND it's structure (note) . Emptiness is not an appropriate characterization.
5) Structure is a whole new topic.

6) This is just physics , even awareness up to GR is assumed, GR is not claimed.

[Moderator: Unsupported gibberish masquerading as physics instruction. Suspended 20 days.]
Jossarian
Hi. Looks like lambda (cosmological constant) in Einstein's equation is a reason for "Dark Energy":
http://techie-buzz.com/science/dark-energy-confirmed.html

Heim went event further then Einstein, he explained this is happening because gravity starts to be repulsive at large distances. Finally there is confirmation.

Does this mean that Big Bang theory is false?
jreed
QUOTE (Jossarian+May 24 2011, 08:17 AM)
Heim went event further then Einstein, he explained this is happening because gravity starts to be repulsive at large distances. Finally there is confirmation.

Does this mean that Big Bang theory is false?

No, it means Heim was wrong in the derivation of his gravity theory. Read the papers by Borje Mansson and Anton Mueller here:

http://home.comcast.net/~djimgraham/INDEX.HTML

Not only was Heim's equation for gravity wrong, but he misinterpreted the solution of that equation.

I started to derive the equations from my translation of Heim's book, but found so many errors that I gave up.

jreed
williatw
http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20110616/tc_zd/265803

Anybody know how to contact William Droscher or Jochem Hauser?
This would be an ideal forum for them to present their ideas. Maybe occasional poster Hdeasy or someone could. This looks like a revival of the advanced propulsion concepts program that was out of NASA a few years ago.
rpenner
QUOTE (williatw+Jun 17 2011, 09:27 PM)
This would be an ideal forum for them to present their ideas.

That would been seen as evidence that their ideas are crackpot and anti-scientific.

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and in science ideas are tasted by the most relevant experts as part of peer review, publication (or not) and consequent adoption of ideas (or rejection of them). Galileo, Newton, Maxwell and Einstein went through this (or similar) tasting process by the experts of their day.

Said ideas, to be a scientific theory must be precise, usefully descriptive of reality and communicable to experts. In many cases, the original presentation to the experts (say Einstein's 1905 description of Special Relativity) is made communicable to a wider audience by those who follow. Thus Minkowski's description of space-time (1908) is the standard textbook language (including Einstein's 1920 pop-physics book) and the basis the treatment of Special Relativity in modern particle physics.

But there is no scientific reason for Droscher or Hauser to repeat their claims here, when the bulk of the physics community is waiting for a demonstration of a useful and precise description of reality. One of the main areas that "Heim theory" falls down in is communicability, given that the mass formulas themselves are complicated and change between Volume I and II without discussion.
gravitophoton
QUOTE (williatw+Jun 17 2011, 09:27 PM)

Anybody know how to contact William Droscher or Jochem Hauser?

gdaigle
QUOTE
(williatw @ Jun 17 2011, 09:27 PM)
Anybody know how to contact William Droscher or Jochem Hauser?


...and I believe it is Walter Dröscher.
gravitophoton
QUOTE (gdaigle+Jun 19 2011, 09:48 PM)

...and I believe it is Walter Dröscher.
Dr_Zinj
I've been thinking about this whole business of the "ring floating free" and it occurs to me that there's no significant difference between this set up, and the demonstration of a magnet floating above a superconductor.

A superconducting Nb ring, rotating or otherwise, should float free above an operating solenoid because of the expulsion of the magnetic field from the superconductor.

None of the equations I've seen seem to take that into account.
gravitophoton
recent discussion in the german wikipedia on the topic:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Burkhard_Heim
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Red...g#Burkhard_Heim

for the interested de.readers here....
djolds1
QUOTE (jreed+May 25 2011, 05:59 PM)
No, it means Heim was wrong in the derivation of his gravity theory. Read the papers by Borje Mansson and Anton Mueller here:

http://home.comcast.net/~djimgraham/INDEX.HTML

Not only was Heim's equation for gravity wrong, but he misinterpreted the solution of that equation.

I started to derive the equations from my translation of Heim's book, but found so many errors that I gave up.

jreed

Well, that's generally conclusive.

Thanks for the input, John. smile.gif
pbelter
QUOTE (jreed+May 25 2011, 05:59 PM)
I've completed my programming of Heim's unpublished 1989 equations to derive the extra quantum numbers (n, m, p, sigma) that I thought were coming from the A matrix. I can now say for certain that the A matrix is not involved with this new version. In addition, I can derive particle masses with only the quantum numbers k, Q, P, kappa and charge without the A matrix. This is what I had hoped to be able to do. These results agree with Anton Mueller's results.

I'm able to get accurate masses for the 17 test particles I have tried this program on. The worst mass comparisons with experimental data are the neutron, 939.11 vs 939.56 experimental and the eta, 548.64 vs 547.3 experimental. All the others are closer, sometimes agreeing to 6 digits.

I thought I might be able to put in any set of quantum numbers for an untested particle and get a mass. This didn't work. I tried the rho+ meson, quantum numbers k=1, P=2, Q=2, kappa=1 or 2 and charge +1. This gave masses of -2000 and + 8. This meson has an experimental mass of 768. However on reading further, the rho is an excited state of the pion, so I used the old 1982 program that calculates excited states, and the first excited state of the pion has mass 775.

All this is very interesting. I think Heim theory might be correct. Much more work needs to be done on calculating interactions, excited states and decay products, but I think all this will turn out to be important, perhaps leading to a new area of physics.

John Reed, Ph.D (physics)

John,

You wrote this a few years ago. Are you now convinced this is just pure coincidental numerology?
jreed
Since I posted that I have done a lot of work with Heim Theory. First I tried to come up with the mass of the Tau lepton. Since I had the equations in a state that should give me this mass if I entered the correct quantum numbers for the Tau, I tried that. This experiment failed. The equations blew up. I noticed that the discovery date for the Tau was later than the other particles Heim had masses for. It was discovered in 1975. The latest discovery date for a particle that Heim's equations give a correct mass for is the K meson, discovered in 1947. Of course, there is the well known discrepancy of the neutral electron, and many more new particles not in Heim's results. It's almost as if Heim's theory is like a snapshot of particle data taken before 1975.

So, I decided to go back to Heim's books and translate them. This took a long time but I finally got to the end of Volume I, chapter II. Before starting on chapter III I decided to take a look at Heim's gravitation theory which starts in section 4 of chapter II, Gravitational Space Structure and its Extrema. I was hoping to come up with an answer to the problem of "dark energy" since Heim claimed to be able to show that gravitation becomes repulsive as distance becomes greater than a certain distance due to the mass of the gravitational field. When I looked at the equations given in the book, the starting equation for the gravitational potential is given on page 77. This is supposed to be the Laplacian, expressed in spherical coordinates. But this equation is WRONG. I looked in my copy of "Methods of Theoretical Physics" by Morse and Feshbach where the equation is given correctly to confirm this. In order to get his incorrect equation to work, Heim had to assume that the azimuthal angle is fixed. Why should this be necessary when spherical symmetry is involved? Heim should have seen this error and corrected it. Any undergrad physics student has seen this equation and should be able to write it correctly. Heim made two errors but finally came out with the equation he wanted. I did some more research and found the articles by Anton Mueller and Borje Mansson I mentioned in my earlier posting.

I think I have some idea of what Heim did now. There is much talk in his book about "empirical data". He took the particle mass data and cooked up his equations to make them correct. It certainly was a lot of work for him, but I don't think it has much to do with physics. I'm sorry to say I wasted a lot of time on this but I hope I can save someone else some work. sad.gif

jreed
pbelter
QUOTE (jreed+Jun 27 2011, 05:49 PM)


I think I have some idea of what Heim did now. There is much talk in his book about "empirical data". He took the particle mass data and cooked up his equations to make them correct. It certainly was a lot of work for him, but I don't think it has much to do with physics. I'm sorry to say I wasted a lot of time on this but I hope I can save someone else some work. sad.gif

jreed

Hi John,

I was lurking on this forum for the past 5 years hoping to find some answers. Looks like I finally got them thanks to you!
I only wonder what Hauser and Dröscher are doing. Do they fail to see the same errors? The books are written in their native German after all.

Anybody from this forum can ask them for comment on Dr Reed's findings?
kurt9
This is a disappointment. I, too, would like to know what Droescher and Hauser have to say about this. Perhaps someone can update the Wiki entry on Heim Theory.

Anyways, thanks for your efforts, John.
timwylie
John,
I have two quick questions about what you've learned if you don't mind. First, have you read the investigations into Heim's gravity equations here: home.comcast.net/~djimgraham/INDEX.HTML ? It's all quite a bit above my head (I work in Math/CS complexity theory), but the authors point out a lot of things Heim got wrong, but how they could be corrected. Just wondering what you thought.

Second, do you have a good grasp on what selector calculus is doing, and does it actually supply new tools that are not accessible with other mathematical methods? The Heim group posted that they are translating most of the equations into current standards, but that some still require selector calculus. So I was just curious if there was actually some valuable contribution in the tools. Thanks.
Maringa
QUOTE (jreed+Jun 27 2011, 05:49 PM)
Since I posted that I have done a lot of work with Heim Theory. First I tried to come up with the mass of the Tau lepton. Since I had the equations in a state that should give me this mass if I entered the correct quantum numbers for the Tau, I tried that. This experiment failed. The equations blew up. I noticed that the discovery date for the Tau was later than the other particles Heim had masses for. It was discovered in 1975. The latest discovery date for a particle that Heim's equations give a correct mass for is the K meson, discovered in 1947. Of course, there is the well known discrepancy of the neutral electron, and many more new particles not in Heim's results. It's almost as if Heim's theory is like a snapshot of particle data taken before 1975.

So, I decided to go back to Heim's books and translate them. This took a long time but I finally got to the end of Volume I, chapter II. Before starting on chapter III I decided to take a look at Heim's gravitation theory which starts in section 4 of chapter II, Gravitational Space Structure and its Extrema. I was hoping to come up with an answer to the problem of "dark energy" since Heim claimed to be able to show that gravitation becomes repulsive as distance becomes greater than a certain distance due to the mass of the gravitational field. When I looked at the equations given in the book, the starting equation for the gravitational potential is given on page 77. This is supposed to be the Laplacian, expressed in spherical coordinates. But this equation is WRONG. I looked in my copy of "Methods of Theoretical Physics" by Morse and Feshbach where the equation is given correctly to confirm this. In order to get his incorrect equation to work, Heim had to assume that the azimuthal angle is fixed. Why should this be necessary when spherical symmetry is involved? Heim should have seen this error and corrected it. Any undergrad physics student has seen this equation and should be able to write it correctly. Heim made two errors but finally came out with the equation he wanted. I did some more research and found the articles by Anton Mueller and Borje Mansson I mentioned in my earlier posting.

I think I have some idea of what Heim did now. There is much talk in his book about "empirical data". He took the particle mass data and cooked up his equations to make them correct. It certainly was a lot of work for him, but I don't think it has much to do with physics. I'm sorry to say I wasted a lot of time on this but I hope I can save someone else some work. sad.gif

jreed

Dont fall it! Right now John is secretly filing away some patents! tongue.gif tongue.gif tongue.gif tongue.gif

Seriously though, this sucks...sorry u had to waste so much time...
djolds1
QUOTE (jreed+Jun 27 2011, 05:49 PM)
Since I posted that I have done a lot of work with Heim Theory. First I tried to come up with the mass of the Tau lepton. Since I had the equations in a state that should give me this mass if I entered the correct quantum numbers for the Tau, I tried that. This experiment failed. The equations blew up. I noticed that the discovery date for the Tau was later than the other particles Heim had masses for. It was discovered in 1975. The latest discovery date for a particle that Heim's equations give a correct mass for is the K meson, discovered in 1947. Of course, there is the well known discrepancy of the neutral electron, and many more new particles not in Heim's results. It's almost as if Heim's theory is like a snapshot of particle data taken before 1975.

So, I decided to go back to Heim's books and translate them. This took a long time but I finally got to the end of Volume I, chapter II. Before starting on chapter III I decided to take a look at Heim's gravitation theory which starts in section 4 of chapter II, Gravitational Space Structure and its Extrema. I was hoping to come up with an answer to the problem of "dark energy" since Heim claimed to be able to show that gravitation becomes repulsive as distance becomes greater than a certain distance due to the mass of the gravitational field. When I looked at the equations given in the book, the starting equation for the gravitational potential is given on page 77. This is supposed to be the Laplacian, expressed in spherical coordinates. But this equation is WRONG. I looked in my copy of "Methods of Theoretical Physics" by Morse and Feshbach where the equation is given correctly to confirm this. In order to get his incorrect equation to work, Heim had to assume that the azimuthal angle is fixed. Why should this be necessary when spherical symmetry is involved? Heim should have seen this error and corrected it. Any undergrad physics student has seen this equation and should be able to write it correctly. Heim made two errors but finally came out with the equation he wanted. I did some more research and found the articles by Anton Mueller and Borje Mansson I mentioned in my earlier posting.

I think I have some idea of what Heim did now. There is much talk in his book about "empirical data". He took the particle mass data and cooked up his equations to make them correct. It certainly was a lot of work for him, but I don't think it has much to do with physics. I'm sorry to say I wasted a lot of time on this but I hope I can save someone else some work. sad.gif

jreed

A heavily tuned model, eh?

Unfortunate, but good to know. My sympathies for the time you expended, but my thanks for the knowledge you've imparted.
Blacky
QUOTE (jreed+Jun 27 2011, 05:49 PM)
I think I have some idea of what Heim did now. There is much talk in his book about "empirical data". He took the particle mass data and cooked up his equations to make them correct. It certainly was a lot of work for him, but I don't think it has much to do with physics. I'm sorry to say I wasted a lot of time on this but I hope I can save someone else some work. sad.gif

jreed

So nothing useful in it ... too bad.

Either way, you have done a terrific job! Congratulations.
jreed
QUOTE (timwylie+Jun 28 2011, 06:38 AM)
John,
I have two quick questions about what you've learned if you don't mind. First, have you read the investigations into Heim's gravity equations here: home.comcast.net/~djimgraham/INDEX.HTML ? It's all quite a bit above my head (I work in Math/CS complexity theory), but the authors point out a lot of things Heim got wrong, but how they could be corrected. Just wondering what you thought.

Second, do you have a good grasp on what selector calculus is doing, and does it actually supply new tools that are not accessible with other mathematical methods? The Heim group posted that they are translating most of the equations into current standards, but that some still require selector calculus. So I was just curious if there was actually some valuable contribution in the tools. Thanks.

Much of what I learned about Heim's gravity equation came from Jim Graham's website. Those were the papers by Anton Mueller and Bjorn Mansson that I mentioned earlier. Anton's paper shows that Heim only derived part of the equation for the gravitational potential. He left out the contribution of the gravitational field mass outside of the observation point. Bjorn shows that including this contribution gives a result that is identical to what is obtained from general relativity. Therefore Heim's results should only give back the GR solution which does not have a repulsive gravitational character.

Even when Heim solved the incomplete part that he derived he wrongly interpreted that solution as having a repulsive part which in fact doesn't exist. What I found in his book was that the equation was written down incorrectly and Heim had to make an additional incorrect stipulation to make it work.

As far as the selector calculus, as far as I can see this is nothing more than replacing intgrals and differentials by their finite difference equivalents. There is nothing new here. This was known to Newton.

jreed
timwylie
Thank you for answering so quickly. In general, do you think that the basic ideas are completely a waste? Also, how has it changed in the extended version with 12 dimensions, or have you even been able to find documentation for it? I will clearly never be able to invest the time to study theoretical physics, but I see a lot of parallels between this and string theory. Both eventually ended up in 12 dimensions, and both received attention in the 70s with a theory that seemed almost ridiculous. Basically if Witten hadn't taken it over in the 80s it would have died as well, and I'm just wondering if some other genius took this up and kept refining it if it might have some worth.

And it doesn't surprise me that it's like a "time capsule" of particle physics. I'm sure he let the known particles guide his theory equations. I think most theories have to build from what we know and adjust as we learn more. I mean look how much general particle physics has changed over the last 100 years. String theory is hardly recognizable now from what it was 20 years ago. Anyway, like I said, it's nowhere near my area of research and just a fun diversion to look at. Thanks again for all of your hard work!
djolds1
Well, I'll be spending the next year or so boning up on my mathematics and looking into the math of Pharis Williams' GUT concept. Ta to all.

And again - John - for the knowledge, thank you. smile.gif
brucep
QUOTE (jreed+Jun 28 2011, 11:37 PM)
Much of what I learned about Heim's gravity equation came from Jim Graham's website.  Those were the papers by Anton Mueller and Bjorn Mansson that I mentioned earlier.  Anton's paper shows that Heim only derived part of the equation for the gravitational potential.  He left out the contribution of the gravitational field mass outside of the observation point.  Bjorn shows that including this contribution gives a result that is identical to what is obtained from general relativity.  Therefore Heim's results should only give back the GR solution which does not have a repulsive gravitational character. 

Even when Heim solved the incomplete part that he derived he wrongly interpreted that solution as having a repulsive part which in fact doesn't exist.  What I found in his book was that the equation was written down incorrectly and Heim had to make an additional incorrect stipulation to make it work.

As far as the selector calculus, as far as I can see this is nothing more than replacing intgrals and differentials by their finite difference equivalents.  There is nothing new here.  This was known to Newton.

jreed

The cosmological constant is the pressure term in the metric. It was the dominant component in the cosmological metric solution to the EFE when inflation occured.
http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/gr.html
kurt9
QUOTE (djolds1+Jun 29 2011, 06:34 PM)
Well, I'll be spending the next year or so boning up on my mathematics and looking into the math of Pharis Williams' GUT concept. Ta to all.

And again - John - for the knowledge, thank you. smile.gif

Perhaps a discussion forum for Dynamic Theory on Physforum is in order?
MichaelB
@jreed, timwylie et al.

It makes me kind of sad to see things look like settling down towards Heim being someone who just did some number magic to impress people. Ignoring the people putting him into the lunatic corner I just feel someone should from time to time try to remember people that it's pretty easy to dismiss someones work as baseless, unphysical or whatsoever without putting a real amount of work into it and looking at the bigger picture as well. The latter means that the mass formula was not Heims biggest achievement, created, made up, whatever just to get acknowledged and praised by the scientific community. As far as I read in the books/texts available (in German) this is just a small part of Heims work, and he tried to get the ground mass spectra of the elementary particles to check whether he's on the right track for what he was seeking. Now in the last days (and the general trend the last years) in this forum suggest Heim's main goal was to create this mass formula. Given this assumption it makes sense to quickly jump at the magic number wagon when errors or mistakes of Heim come up. But from his real work point of view it doesn't make any sense to make things up as that's just not what he was after for. This would be like kidding yourself all the time when nobody actually cares about what you do. This is like he would have made up the formula before 1975 and then happily continue his actual work (based on the made up stuff) in the realms he was even more interested in for the next 26 years. Heim has been working on this stuff all his live and if you believe his biography more then the average person at work. So either he was really a lunatic (as some people suggest) or things might not be as simple as sometimes presented here.

Now there seams to be almost nobody in this forum who really did put effort into Heims work. jreed was the only one (besides hdeasy) on the professional level who appeared here and spoke about it here (sorry to the ones I forgot). For this reason his opinion is very valid and should be taken seriously. But even then I think it looks to me a bit prematurely to declare that now Heims work is basically unphysical made up number magic. I remember first when jreed appeared here Heims work was quickly wrong as in some versions of the mass formula things couldn't be explained or simply some "magic numbers" where in there. Quite some time later suddenly the formula seamed to be ok as a newer version didn't have these numbers anymore. And again a few years later everything is turned back into number magic again because his work has errors and doesn't explain some of the things.

Now, this all doesn't rule out the possibility that he really was a lunatic or plain wrong (and the longer one reads this forum the more one gets his own doubts) or that he made things up. But all these assumptions only make sense if people here put a pretty narrow view on what Heim tried to achieve. That's probably because almost all of the material outside of the purely physical realm is only available in German. In my opinion if one takes all the published work together, that's the reason I think it's unlikely that at least the make-things-up part makes any sense.

People here should really think a little bit about what Heims work means, when it was carried out, who's working on it now etc.. Most of this stuff is many decades old. I guess Dröscher was basically the last one who had deep knowledge of some of the more interesting aspects as he worked together with Heim quite some time and also co-authored the third book. To me all the new space related stuff of Hauser/Dröscher isn't really a direct further development of Heims ideas and goals (even though the spacecrafts started everything), but more the attempt to create out of Heims work something own, more modern and nowadays approachable at a field where it is possible at all to work on Heim-stuff. But still I think much less time is put into this as Heim dedicated to his work during his life.

I have no glue what consequences it has that the calculations of the gravitational fields etc. already contain errors, seemingly subsequent wrong interpretations etc., but I still can imagine this doesn't necessarily have to effect other results of his work and thinking. He started at the reformulation end extension of Newtons gravitational theory and on the way was lead to his higher dimensional theories and the stuff thereafter. What about the multi-valued logic he later used to try to get a grasp at life processes and the like. I read, he put all his work finally into this superordinate framework and described also his particle theory in these terms. Besides not making sense doing all this with made up formulas, I always wonder if it's possible that you can do these things if all you do for decades is rubbish. And even listening to Heim himself (e.g. on the audiobook) he never made the impression that he didn't care about trying to get at least some validation before proceeding on the chosen path. He just seamed to be concerned to get further to get some answers to the really interesting questions.

So to me he was either a really great lunatic where it's already interesting to understand his motivation behind all this fantastic made up stuff - you really should read one of the smaller papers (unfortunately only in German) about life processes and the mind. If this is made up, it's great. If it's not then the possibility that Heim was probably way over most of our minds is pretty high. So just dismissing him lightly as magician might not give him the respect he deserves. And from a different point of view, the respect everybody deserves having created that amount of work, whether as a lunatic or a genius.

So now I should go back to lurker mode as I can only argue on this meta-level (sigh).
timwylie
I agree, and that's why I was asking about whether it could evolve or not. Like I mentioned before, string theory was completely different 20 years ago and would have died if not for a few fervent brilliant men who have been continually developing it and evolving it. It would not surprise me if the same could happen with Heim. If a few good theorists who really understood it could continue to update it and fix problems then it might become very relevant, or they should be able to prove that it is inherently flawed.
jreed
QUOTE (timwylie+Jun 29 2011, 04:22 PM)
I will clearly never be able to invest the time to study theoretical physics, but I see a lot of parallels between this and string theory. Both eventually ended up in 12 dimensions, and both received attention in the 70s with a theory that seemed almost ridiculous. Basically if Witten hadn't taken it over in the 80s it would have died as well, and I'm just wondering if some other genius took this up and kept refining it if it might have some worth.

And it doesn't surprise me that it's like a "time capsule" of particle physics. I'm sure he let the known particles guide his theory equations. I think most theories have to build from what we know and adjust as we learn more. I mean look how much general particle physics has changed over the last 100 years. String theory is hardly recognizable now from what it was 20 years ago. Anyway, like I said, it's nowhere near my area of research and just a fun diversion to look at. Thanks again for all of your hard work!

First, I put string theory in the catagory of unproven theories. Many physicists don't believe it is correct since it has never been able to provide any values that can be checked by experiment. It has a lot of nice math, but no answers. It's good for writing articles for Physical Review to get your publishing count up (promotions and raises) or for getting a Ph.D in physics. You just find a nice problem, work the math a while and write up a thesis. You don't have to worry about finding agreement with experiments, because it's all theory. Then you get your Ph.D.

Heim theory is just the opposite. It has a lot of ugly math since nobody can follow it or wants to publish it, and many answers. What bothers me is the predictions of Heim theory. Not a single new particle discovered after the early 1970s has had its mass calculated by Heim theory. I've tried to do this with many particles, and it just doesn't work. A good theory should be able to make predictions of things outside its initial design.

That's about all I have to say on Heim theory. I was really hoping that it would turn out better.

jreed
timwylie
Yeah, string theory is odd in the way it's accepted as mainstream, but not accepted as being right since it can't be proven. Well, thank you again for answering my questions and for all the time you've devoted to this. If anything you might have saved some others a lot of time. I am sure a lot of people really appreciate it.
brucep
QUOTE (jreed+Jun 29 2011, 11:40 PM)
First, I put string theory in the catagory of unproven theories. Many physicists don't believe it is correct since it has never been able to provide any values that can be checked by experiment. It has a lot of nice math, but no answers. It's good for writing articles for Physical Review to get your publishing count up (promotions and raises) or for getting a Ph.D in physics. You just find a nice problem, work the math a while and write up a thesis. You don't have to worry about finding agreement with experiments, because it's all theory. Then you get your Ph.D.

Heim theory is just the opposite. It has a lot of ugly math since nobody can follow it or wants to publish it, and many answers. What bothers me is the predictions of Heim theory. Not a single new particle discovered after the early 1970s has had its mass calculated by Heim theory. I've tried to do this with many particles, and it just doesn't work. A good theory should be able to make predictions of things outside its initial design.

That's about all I have to say on Heim theory. I was really hoping that it would turn out better.

jreed

Next time you might want to be a little more honest about why string theory doesn't have more empirical support. IE the domain of applicability is the planck era at the very beginning of the universe and r=0 for black holes. You make it sound like a cottage industry for physicists. After reading your comment again you're pretty naive.
jmazzone
QUOTE (MichaelB+Jun 29 2011, 08:05 PM)
@jreed, timwylie et al.

It makes me kind of sad to see things look like settling down towards Heim being someone who just did some number magic to impress people....

I learned the theory of Heim in 2008 and then spent time in programming with mathcad , regardless of John Reed, the 1989 version published at www.theory.com, the final corrections can be downloaded from the site of Mr. Posdzech. This mess of equations appears too complex today to find out if it is made or deduced from a very complex theory. Remember Heim worked in his later years to find a criterion of selection that allows you to narrow the results, and therefore make predictions based on these formulas is very difficult. I agree with MicaelB in the sense that you have to take all the work of Heim to see where you point your goal, and that no one would spend their entire lives in a big joke. I also agree with jreed that any theory must predict that were not originally mensurable. In view of this despair, we must not forget that Heim left about 4000 + pages of manuscript in IGW, as far as I know, and perhaps even more.
If you read the book on Heim, recently written by Mr. von Ludwiger, "Burkhard Heim: Das Leben eines vergessenen Genies" will have a clear vision of his life and work. There are also reasons to suggest that the first two chapters of vol. 1 "elementaren .." are NOT the original line of thinking on the derivation of the law of gravity, it not match the original manuscript. This was published as well, with the consent of Heim, but it's a mystery why he allowed these chapters "nonsense."
In summary, in the first two articles available from Heim, the 1956 and 1959, he outlines very superficially, that he drew all his work since his method "Sintrometry" are perhaps the purest articles that were published.
Only when possible to study all his legacy, perhaps we can say if it was a crackpot, or a complete genius.
Lunarlanding
QUOTE (jreed+Jun 28 2011, 11:37 PM)
Much of what I learned about Heim's gravity equation came from Jim Graham's website.  Those were the papers by Anton Mueller and Bjorn Mansson that I mentioned earlier.  Anton's paper shows that Heim only derived part of the equation for the gravitational potential.  He left out the contribution of the gravitational field mass outside of the observation point. 

Even when Heim solved the incomplete part that he derived he wrongly interpreted that solution as having a repulsive part which in fact doesn't exist.  What I found in his book was that the equation was written down incorrectly and Heim had to make an additional incorrect stipulation to make it work.

jreed

QUOTE
Even when Heim solved the incomplete part that he derived he wrongly interpreted that solution as having a repulsive part which in fact doesn't exist. What I found in his book was that the equation was written down incorrectly and Heim had to make an additional incorrect stipulation to make it work.


Thank you jreed for these links and especially the comments.

No doubt this should put the nail in the Heim coffin....at least for those who understand physics.

As you and Börje Månsson pointed out, the graph of his equation is clearly unphysical, predicting zero gravity at earth's surface and going repulsive above earth's surface !...For those interested ...See the grav. potential graph of his equation here provided by Börje Månsson (bottom of the page with attached explanation)
http://home.comcast.net/~djimgraham/Analyt..._equationV2.htm

Rather ridiculous.....and clearly as you say.....a wrong differential equation.
It is amazing that Heim never bothered with the analytics... or was so sure of himself that he forgot to do it. rolleyes.gif

More here in terms of the acceleration field:(with graph)

http://home.comcast.net/~djimgraham/Furthe...eim_gravity.htm

Thanks for these links....that settled it for me. You work was not in vain....Clearly anyone who understands basic physics must agree with your ( and Månsson's) analysis.

Lunar
kurt9
Guys,

Another falsification of Heim Theory (and Quantum Loop Gravity Theory as well):

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM5B34TBPG_index_0.html

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.1068v1.pdf
pbelter
QUOTE (jreed+May 25 2011, 05:59 PM)
No, it means Heim was wrong in the derivation of his gravity theory. Read the papers by Borje Mansson and Anton Mueller here:

http://home.comcast.net/~djimgraham/INDEX.HTML

Not only was Heim's equation for gravity wrong, but he misinterpreted the solution of that equation.

I started to derive the equations from my translation of Heim's book, but found so many errors that I gave up.

jreed

John,

I read those papers, an they were briefly discussed on this forum back in Dec 2006 when first published.

Börje Månsson concluded:



QUOTE
Does all this mean we should dismiss Heim gravity altogether? Maybe not. I think it is possible to adapt the core of Heim gravity to a general relativity consistent theory. If we solve the original Heim equation without field energy term …
I conclude: The original Heim gravity differential equation is wrong, because of wrong interpretation of field mass. At least the coefficients must be wrong, as they will not lead to the correct first order correction term to Newton gravity. However, if the particle connection ρ=h2/Gm3 is correct, the Heim proper solution (The solution without field mass), can be made a bases for a solution of ordinary General Relativity field equations. The connection can be interpreted as a dark energy generation from ordinary masses. The cosmological constant could then be interpreted as the result of addition of all mass contributions to dark energy in visible universe. A relation between ρ, cosmological constant and mean density of matter can be established. I think the dark energy generation could be seen as a repulsion of space itself. All masses make the space around them to expand with a constant acceleration -GM/ρ2. Mass attracts masses, but repels space. This means that the repulsion acceleration is greater than normal attraction for r> ρ. It is not an ordinary repulsion, because it is space itself that “moves”. However for an observer it looks like a “real” repulsion. Of course all these conclusions are useless if Heims derivation of the particle connection also is wrong.


Where is ρ=h2/Gm3 derived?

jreed
QUOTE (pbelter+Jul 2 2011, 04:33 PM)

Where is ρ=h2/Gm3 derived?

You can find it on page 88 of Volume I of Elementary Structures just below equation (12a). It's also discussed in Heim's MBB lecture which we translated into English and can be found at:

http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/downloads...mbb%201.2en.pdf

see equation (22).

If you understand the meaning of this equation, please let us know about it.

jreed
Lunarlanding
QUOTE (kurt9+Jul 2 2011, 06:03 AM)
Guys,

Another falsification of Heim Theory (and Quantum Loop Gravity Theory as well):

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM5B34TBPG_index_0.html

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.1068v1.pdf


Nice articles, Kurt. wink.gif
So tell us why this invalidates Heim.

..
Lunarlanding
QUOTE (jreed+Jul 2 2011, 11:22 PM)
  It's also discussed in Heim's MBB lecture which we translated into English and can be found at:

http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/downloads...mbb%201.2en.pdf

see equation (22).

jreed


The real question seems to be "where did he get the differential eqn. #18?" For it is from Eqn.#18 (thru #20) that he derives the formula pbelter is asking about, namely eqn.#20.


QUOTE
If you understand the meaning of this equation, please let us know about it


He seems to be trying to find out where (at what radius) the grav. potential goes to zero using that eqn.

Using 'average' 'atomic weight (and nucleon mass) he estimates the distance to be 46 Mpc, and then he appears to use "unobservable" Cosmological gravitation beyond 10 to 20 million LY as confirmation of his equation. IOW, no observed galactic clustering beyond that limit ??? rolleyes.gif

Pretty tenuous confirmation if you ask me, especially since it is based on assumed galactic elemental composition. Maybe I'm missing something here. ??

Lunar
kurt9
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Jul 3 2011, 03:12 AM)

Nice articles, Kurt. wink.gif
So tell us why this invalidates Heim.

..

The size of the quantum "graininess" is much smaller than the size calculated for the metron in Heim theory, which is comparable to the plank size.
jmazzone
QUOTE (kurt9+Jul 3 2011, 02:27 AM)
The size of the quantum "graininess" is much smaller than the size calculated for the metron in Heim theory, which is comparable to the plank size.

The metron is a unit surface between any combination of a pair of 6 dimensions in the theory of Heim. Here there is no minimum length (IE Planck length). The minimum geometric unit is a surface!
I'm not sure we can compare wink.gif
jreed
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Jul 3 2011, 04:02 AM)

The real question seems to be "where did he get the differential eqn. #18?" For it is from Eqn.#18 (thru #20) that he derives the formula pbelter is asking about, namely eqn.#20.




He seems to be trying to find out where (at what radius) the grav. potential goes to zero using that eqn.


I believe equation (18) comes from Heim's calculations which start at his (incomplete) expression for the gravitational potential. At least that's what Heim's book shows. As Anton states, that equation is incomplete so everything that is derived from it is incorrect. All a waste of time. When I discovered this, I stopped working on Heim theory since all of the discussion from here on is probably incorrect.

jreed
Lunarlanding
QUOTE (jreed+Jul 3 2011, 01:03 PM)
I believe equation (18) comes from Heim's calculations which start at his (incomplete) expression for the gravitational potential.  At least that's what Heim's book shows.  As Anton states, that equation is incomplete so everything that is derived from it is incorrect.  All a waste of time. When I discovered this, I stopped working on Heim theory since all of the discussion from here on is probably incorrect.

jreed


Thanks for the response, John;
I agree with you completely.

As Anton points out concerning the derivation of that eqn., (reported by Mansson here)... http://home.comcast.net/~djimgraham/The_He...l_equation7.htm .......
Heim makes a serious (and obvious) error in calculating the potentials, i.e., he fails to include the contribution from field mass beyond the radius, thus invalidating his equation from the get-go.
That seems to be the source of the whole problem.

Lunar
williatw
So does this mean that the work of Walter Dröscher and Jochem Häuser in collaboration with Heim is also junk? That their several papers touching on the possibility of novel means of propulsion are ruled out? Would still like to see someone run the experiments if magnets with the necessary field strengths are developed soon... http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/60-tesla-...nets-would.html
Blacky
I think it means that fundamentally the "theory" lacks a cohesive and complete formulation which would enable the discovery of new phenomenon leading to new technologies (as in new means of transportation) if that is what you are thinking of. The problems is that Heim uses too much imagination and far less real physics.

It might still help in the sense that it would inspire others to develop new theories or think of the universe in new ways, but besides that I don't see any other use for it (not at this point).
MichaelB
Or it just means that the creator of the theory is dead for more than a decade now, can't be asked, can't defend his theory, nobody who really has a good overall understanding of the theory is posting here and that all that won't change anytime soon.

It's remarkable that this thread still exists, but even it's age doesn't imply that much work is being put into the theory, besides Dröscher/Hauser's work. Does this mean it's fair to declare it's lacking "cohesive and complete formulation" ? I don't think so. I wouldn't mind getting some evidence that all of Heims work is just rubbish (besides the known facts), please post these information. I read quite a bit and might be able to follow some of it. At least then one could understand how some of the opinions came into being. But so far one only can read old (and probably true) statements that particular parts/formulas in books are wrong, have been misinterpreted, whatever. But as some people including me noted, what gets talked about here is not nearly all of Heims work and inferring from a few percent of Heims work that everything else is rubbish would probably put all of modern physics to death, if we use the same measures there. How can something like (Super-)String-Theory be considered somewhat true/interesting/worthwhile at all if it changed so much in the last 20 years. It should have been abandoned decades ago and there you have hundreds of people working on, still alive.

If nobody believes there's a body of work from Heim, just checkout the libraries or bookstores. Not understanding them (due to being German or incomprehensible, whatever) doesn't make them less real and thus a bit different from the average pet "the-universe-is-in-a-funny-way-different-than-you-all-thought" theory created last summer.

gdaigle
QUOTE
So does this mean that the work of Walter Dröscher and Jochem Häuser in collaboration with Heim is also junk?


Dröscher and Hauser's efforts in EHT are for an eight-dimensional gauge space rather than Heim's original six-dimensional space. Since Dröscher and Hauser derive those results without reliance upon Heim's calculations you need to address EHT as a separate body of work, even though the "kernel" of the idea (hermetry of space) remains Heim's. Any errors or incompleteness of calculations in the original Heim Theory should reflect only upon Heim Theory. EHT should be judged on its own merits and calculations.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.